It's pretty amusing that corporations upset about China's new labor law dust off essentially identical talking points as they might use to oppose a bump in the New Jersey minimum wage. Surely it would make more sense for the businesses in question to use this turn of events to try to undercut the "race to the bottom" globalization narrative and help bolster support for business-friendly trade policies.
« Gotta Get Away | Main | Uh-Oh »
The World Is Flat
30 Jun 2007 08:35 am
Comments (9)
Remember, HeiGou is the same lunatic who thought we could have "won" the Vietnam War if we had killed 3 million more Vietnamese. This is the face of the right wing: human lives do not matter, only corporate profits do.
High wage laws and other forms of social intervention (such as China has seen since 1949) do not work. What else is there to say?
That maybe there's a difference between requiring written contracts and the Great Leap Forward?
Does anyone deny the logic of that?
The more relevant question is whether it is logical for the United States to pass laws that encourage this phenomenon.
"If New Jersey increased them beyond a competitive level, I'd up sticks to somewhere like China. Actually I'd really fold and find some other line of work but work with me here for a second. If China raises them too far - although all Chinese labor laws are notional anyway - I'd have to pack up and go to somewhere like Cambodia or India."
The difference is that here you make the distinction of "beyond a competitive level." There's a difference between arguments of scale (what you make here) and one of kind. When you say paying janitors $100 an hour doesn't make sense, that's one thing and no one would really deny it. When companies crack out econ 101 arguments against any minimum wage law, they are making arguments of kind, which don't really hold up in reality. You are giving companies too much credit.
Matt's exactly right. The best argument against business apologists and economists who say that the race to the bottom is not happening comes from the cries and threats of business itself at moments like this. I'll stop believing in an RTB when businesses stop asking for it.
Why not combine pro-labor measures such as limiting unskilled immigration to tighten that labor market with pro-business measures such as lowering the corporate income tax rate? Labor is just one among several costs for businesses, and often it isn't the highest cost. Why should we have higher corporate income tax rates than Sweden? Maybe we can attract more international businesses to set up shop here (and create jobs here) if one of our two major political parties wasn't constantly flirting with populist/business-is-evil policies?
I don't think we'll ever be competitive in the sweatshop sector (thankfully), but there's no reason we can't attract more of the sort of high-end companies that have been setting up shop in places like Ireland.
"Surely it would make more sense for the businesses in question to use this turn of events to try to undercut the "race to the bottom" globalization narrative and help bolster support for business-friendly trade policies."
Funny how someone can make this statement and at the same time take the side of the corporate/BushCo/WSJ Axis of Greed's campaign to flood this country with cheap unskilled illegal immigrant labor.
Posted by Josh G. | June 30, 2007 10:15 AM:"Remember, HeiGou is the same lunatic who thought we could have "won" the Vietnam War if we had killed 3 million more Vietnamese. This is the face of the right wing: human lives do not matter, only corporate profits do."
Come on Josh. I give you so much gold to work with. Why do you need to invent any more? I never, of course, said any such thing.
As for human lives, those evil corporate profits have enormously improved the lives of ordinary Chinese. Unlike the decades of socialism before them. I support markets not because I own anything of importance but because they work to improve human lives. What you mean is that the real face of the Left wing is that human lives do not matter (see Great Leap Forward), only hatred of the West and freedom do.
Posted by Matt Weiner | June 30, 2007 11:41 AM:"That maybe there's a difference between requiring written contracts and the Great Leap Forward?"
There may be but that is not the problem here is it? The demand for higher minimum wages has nothing to do with written contracts. The Chinese could do a lot to improve the conditions of their workers. Let them legally move to the cities for one. But making Chinese labor uncompetitive is not one of them.
Posted by LaFollette Progressive | June 30, 2007 1:49 PM:"The more relevant question is whether it is logical for the United States to pass laws that encourage this phenomenon."
You mean like a higher minimum wage in New Jersey? I am with you on that one.
Posted by Reality Man | June 30, 2007 3:03 PM:"The difference is that here you make the distinction of "beyond a competitive level." There's a difference between arguments of scale (what you make here) and one of kind. When you say paying janitors $100 an hour doesn't make sense, that's one thing and no one would really deny it."
I fail to follow the logic of your argument I am afraid to say. That is not a difference of scale, but of costs. It does make sense to pay a janitor $100 an hour if that is the prevailing minimum wage (and I do not doubt for a second that America is slowly heading towards janitors on $100 an hour). You cannot out source that job. Nor can someone in China compete with it. Textiles on the other hand is easily out sourced. You can pay your sewers $100 if you like but you're going to be out of business soon.
Posted by Reality Man | June 30, 2007 3:03 PM:"When companies crack out econ 101 arguments against any minimum wage law, they are making arguments of kind, which don't really hold up in reality."
Those Econ 101 arguments still look pretty strong to me. I have yet to hear of anything that would suggest they do not hold up.
Comments closed July 14, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I am sorry but I don't follow this. Of course they are going to make the same obvious point about hiking wages in China as they would in New Jersey. The problems are, surely, exactly the same? If I was in an old fashioned labor-intensive dirty industry, I'd be concerned about wages. If New Jersey increased them beyond a competitive level, I'd up sticks to somewhere like China. Actually I'd really fold and find some other line of work but work with me here for a second. If China raises them too far - although all Chinese labor laws are notional anyway - I'd have to pack up and go to somewhere like Cambodia or India. Does anyone deny the logic of that?
Why would anyone want to under-cut the "race to the bottom" narrative which does not really exist anyway? It is not a race to the cheapest country but to the highest productivity for the lowest wages countries. China is more expensive than Mali but no one is moving to Mali.
Business-friendly trade policies? Hiking the minimum wage is not business friendly. Fighting the anti-Capitalist narrative (as in "race for the bottom") is business-friendly but it is probably too deeply ingrained to be worth it. However capitalism is bringing huge benefits to Chinese workers. That is obvious. High wage laws and other forms of social intervention (such as China has seen since 1949) do not work. What else is there to say?
Posted by HeiGou | June 30, 2007 9:11 AM